Tag Archives: Testing

Who Is In Charge? Enforcement of Codes

Posted on by
Reply

Since hurricane Andrew, the building codes have been strengthened a great deal.  However, it appears that only reputable manufacturers and subcontractors are abiding by many of the code requirements.

Within the MCM industry, many non-reputable fabricators and subcontractors are not abiding by some of the code requirements for structural integrity, testing for water and air infiltration, etc.  Additionally, the MCM Manufacturers are turning a blind eye to this fact.  Admittedly, they do not have contractual responsibility to assure that the fabricators are abiding by the codes, but they are stakeholders in maintaining great performance of this outstanding product type.

Since MCM has inherent strength and flexibility, there has not been a rash of poor performance, but this good fortune does not address the fact that the codes are not being enforced.  Fairness would dictate that all participants should be held to the same standards, but if no one is effectively enforcing the codes, non-reputable participants will always “take shortcuts” and reputable participants will be at a competitive and financial disadvantage.

I know this is happening in our segment of the non-residential construction industry and it would be disingenuous to presume it is not happening in other segments as well.

Let me pose the following questions to the readers of this Blog and ask for your comments: 

  • Have you experienced similar situations in your segment of the industry?
  • Have you been able to address these infractions in some way that has proven beneficial?
  • Do any of you have ideas on how we may be able to address this issue to promulgate a positive outcome?

I do not ask for a lot of comments on most issues, but this one is different.  Please participate on this topic for the betterment of our industry.

Tool of the Week, Day, etc. – The following link http://www.48days.net/forum/topics/the-ipad-valuable-business-1 goes to a discussion about whether the new iPad is a useful business tool or just a gadget.  This may be helpful to those of you who are considering this new device.

That is it for today.  Post your comments on the Blog and let us stimulate the discussion.

Thanks,

Ted S. Miller 

PrintShare

Change You Can Really Believe In

Posted on by
1

The value of Metal Composite Material is being devalued by a small element of the International Building Code – Section 1407 – METAL COMPOSITE MATERIALS (MCM).  A small footnote (a. – Table 1604.3 – DEFLECTION LIMITS) requires that the deflection from total loads be limited to L/60 of the span.

Appropriate deflection limitations should be determined by the following criteria:

  • Assure structural integrity so that the panel system will remain on the building during design wind load conditions.
  • Assure that sealant joints do not fail due to movement of panels during design wind load conditions because of excessive deflection.
  • Assure that “permanent set” of panels is not visually objectionable after occurrence of design wind load conditions.

Deflection Limitations should be based upon the inherent qualities of the material.  For example, Masonry walls are brittle and do not “flex”, therefore, they should be held to very strict Deflection Limitations – L/360.  However, Metal Composite Material is very “flexible” so a more liberal Deflection Limitation is appropriate.

For these reasons, the deflection criteria should be changed for Section 1407 of the IBC to take better advantage of the ability of Metal Composite Material to “flex” during significant wind loads and return to its original condition without damage.  This would allow for more efficient design of panels and therefore reduce the cost of the panel systems to the building owner.

Currently, a small group of MCM Fabricators actually design their panel systems to meet the Code and many more depend on the lack of inspection of Code Enforcement Bodies to not require compliance.  So, you have the best Fabricators providing needless reinforcement competing with lower quality Fabricators not providing the unneeded reinforcement.  Obviously, many Projects end up with lower quality panels because the better Fabricators are at a disadvantage.

If the Code is changed, the better Fabricators would be able to be more competitive, obtain more Projects, and Building Owners would receive better value.  This is really change you can believe in.

So, let us start a discussion on how we can initiate this change for the advancement of our industry.  Post you ideas on the Blog.

Thanks,

Ted S. Miller

PrintShare